@ Sow. Happyhindu - Paradoxes in your idea of Saivism, K.R. Subramaniam published in 1929.
"Rudra is not worshipped as a phallus symbol in the RigSamhita. There are enough books which detail the historical basis of Shiva worship (as different) from Rudra; and also on Shiva's symbol. Already gave you the link to the book on the "Origins of Saivism" by K R Subramanian.
There are other books dealing with the Saiva and Tantra texts. You can also get enuf info on the union of the (mooladhara) Shakti from the area around the Penis / genitals with "Shiva". The symbolism is not lewd. "
K. R. Subramanian is one of many authors who have given merely their points of view on this matter.
If you had read the book fully you wud have not said this. KRSubramanian has not merely given his points on the symbolism. He has traced the history of Shiva worship through various groups of people and across old kingdoms.
Those who ascribe to his ideas have already bought the idea that Aryan and "un-Aryan" (as he calls) tribes and cults exist. However, nothing of the sort has been spoken in throughout history.
To keep claiming the same thing without any references would only show how 'well-read' you are. It would be better to list out the reasons (with counter-research points) why an author's points cannot be held valid. It is not right to merely fling the accusation of being influenced by the british (at anyone who says things opposite to your pre-conceived notions).
If indeed shishna has no connotations other than penis, and it is reference to phallus worship in temples today to Shiva as you claim, it posses the following paradoxes only you are to explain (because you support that view):
Am not "supporting" any view. Since you are misleading people with all sorts of nonsense with no textual evidence, i am (for the record) mentioning what grammarians and historians have said.
1. How would the Shaivites continue to regard the Vedas important and at the same time do lingam worship? Even saying they read the Yajur Veda and not the Rig, they like all traditions in India regard it all to have come from one before its division.
If there was a "merger" after the vedic period, why would NOT the 'Shaivites' regard the vedas as important?
BTW, are you sure if pure Shaivites regard the Vedas as important even today? If Shri Nacchinarkiniyan Sir was here, he would have explained this the best.
2. Why would the term "lingam" be used instead of "shishna" if they are indeed refering to the same worship? More strongly posed: Why has the word shishna never been applied of shiva's lingam ('symbol')
3. Why would shishnadeva not be one of the names of Shiva today? Why was there never a controversy in Rudra being Shiva's name?
"But the Vedic Aryans obviously looked down upon the worship practices of dasyus -- because the dasyus did not offer fire oblations to the "vedic devas"."
And why would they turn a "dasyu" deity to have a place in their own vedas? That too equal in place with the highest deity?
Ofcourse Sisna has been used for Shiva Lingam. Here is one translation of the Hamsa Upanishad:
Hamsa Upanishad | Vedanta Spiritual Library And this is one book that can answer your questions on the Rudra-Shiva merger:
A social history of India - Google Books
Subramaniam explains through his own striding assumptions why brahmins turned the 'shishna' of the dasyus to "fire" in order to "cover" something. But if all this that he said was true, it wouldn't even be required of the brahmins to have taken the idea itself and then work to "connotations to cover its crude origin" (in his own words).
And K.R. Subramaniam's work can hardly be reference when he studied M.A. and published this in in 1929 when the British racial ideas of these were ripe. No wonder he goes by ideas or "aryan" and "unaryan" cults.
You are free to hold your view (thru your 'selective reading') that anyone who wrote anything against your pre-conceived notions was influenced by the British. Thankfully Sayana, Yaska and Medhatithi lived ages before the british. And they too mention aryas and non-aryas as warring groups.
But the dasyus aren't really (literally) "rite-less" or "fire-less" - because Rig Veda 7.6.3 which describes enemies like Vishwamitra, the Purus and Brigus both of which are clans that have rites, and did yagnas with fire. This itself poses a contrdiction in your views.
Yes ofcourse the dasyus were 'characterised' by the rigvedis as rite-less and fire-less because they did not offer oblations to the "vedic devas". I would suggest you read about the story of Vishwamitra from not just the Rig but also from the aitareya brahmana (AB). Vishwamitra's story from the AB is available in English in very short non-elaborate ways on google books (so you will need to type the relevant tag words and read across many books for the story). And as regards the Purus and Bhrigus, i would suggest you read the book "Rig veda- A Historical Analysis" by Shrikant Talegari. You can read it for free here:
THE RIGVEDA - A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
"May i ask have you read the Aitareya Brahmana 7.13 to 7.18 to make the "character" claim ? Have you read Sayana's commentary on the Aitareya Brahmana? "
You are free to quote him, I never could find the text on the net. Every reference I have come across till now has the exact meaning of dasyu. Even references that call a certain tribe dasyu are clearly due to their character, and not because they call the tribe or clan dasyu per se. This is most best understood in Rig Veda 7.6.3 where many clans that do follow fire-rites and so-called "aryan" culture, are called dasyu.
If you could not find the Aitareya Brahmana (AB) on the net it means you have not read that portion right? And without reading the portion how can you claim that '
specific reference and event' was based on "
character" ? Btw, the Aitareya Brahmana can be downloaded here:
AITAREYA BRAHMANA : ANANTAKRISHNA SASTRI : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive (you can take the specific portion from 7.13 to 7.18 to any Sanskrit teacher and ask him / her to explain). Similarly if you have not read Sayana's commentary on AB, how can you claim (insist) that Sayana meant a "
universal meaning" of the term dasyu?
You are saying that "fire-rites" are 'aryan', but fire is sacred to the Zoarashtrian religion also. Fire is not sacred to just vedism alone. It is obvious that that the Zorashtrian religion did not offer fire oblations to the "vedic devas". The dasyus were characterised as 'rite-less' and ayagna (fire-less) because they did not offer oblations to the "vedic devas". Just by doing fire-rituals one does not become an "arya". To be an arya, obviously one had to offer oblations to the "vedic devas". Again it wud be better if you read Talegari's book link provided above.
" There is already plenty of info on "mixed races" or "impure races". You might as well do that instead of arguing foolishly."
"Arguing foolishly" is you, after I had pointed fire-rite clans who had been called dasyu. After I had clearly pointed the place in the Mahabharata where Pandavas are called Anarya due to killing Drona by deceit. =)
Vivek, it is quite apparent who is arguing here without sufficent reading or without providing references to back up claims. Already mentioned that Mahabharat had many authors. Yet again you are using an itihasa-work to justify your baseless notion that "arya" of the vedic period was based on "character". What can be more foolish?
"No need to ascribe motives to every single writer who wrote something that goes against your pre-conceived notions. GP Singh's book "The Kiratas in Ancient India" is about the very many details of Kiratas."
G.P. Singh and others may not have had a "motive" - they had a wrong idea of what the words themselves meant, because (as you yourself admitted) foreign authors put their own meanings to words like "kula". The point I said was, Sayana didn't say any tribes and clans were classified as "arya" and "dasyu", or that aryas and dasyus lived in so and so regions. This itself is proof that he, like all ancient authors wasn't speaking of the words of modern authors, which are taken from the idea of British Indologists because they learnt them in school through their academic course. The very idea you deny, Aryan Invasion, is itself part of the syllabus. Races like black, white defined the social reality in which the Europeans lived which is why they put those ideas even while reading Indian texts. Which is why it is misinterpretted.
This is why it is necessary to understand the translation or interpretation of anything in reference to the era it was made in.
Utter rubbish. There is no need to ascribe motives to GP Singh esp even without reading his book on the Kiratas. All you want to do is british-bashing. Since you are wearing glasses tinted with AIT, anything you read will also appear colored (prejudiced).
BTW, there is no need to say that "
(as you yourself admitted) foreign authors put their own meanings to words like "kula".
Am only mentioning facts. What is there to "admit" in this? This is what i call 'twisting words'. Did i say that foreign authors "put their own meanings" ? Why are you putting words into my mouth? Kula does mean a clan. And that is that authors translated it as.
As regards the term "race", you take any sanskrit-english dictionary, the words for race is kulam, vamsham, jaati, jaata, varga, amvayaha, santanaha, santati, gotra.
It is apparent that the old folks thot "race" depends on family of birth, on jaati, on vamsha lineage, on clan, on varga division, on gotra, etc. That is because their knowledge of what constitutes "race" was limited. Even today some people think caste means race. Obviously it is not correct. So we cannot blame the foreign authors alone for mentioning these things.
"So according to you the brahmanas of Andhra were "arya" but got mentioned by Raychaudhri, Bhadarkar, Iyengar as "Dasyus"? Great. By now you should know that ignorance is a vice. "
By saying this you happily skipped over what I expected you to explain. In one place you say Andhras are dasyus, then in another you say brahmins from the andhra region migrated. How could these brahmins have been dasyus, if they are throwing sticks in the fire or had "fire-rites" which according to you is the definition people gave of brahmins.
Ignorance is from your side. You have just mugged what a few authors have said, and read only one opinion on this matter without applying in what time they were said or which context.
So you did not read the link on how andhra boyas transformed themselves into brahmins? Even today anyone can learn to perform a few homams and transform themselves into 'brahmins'. Even in the past there were redactions and changes to the 'gotra system'. There is no guarantee that the brahmana (texts) never changed hands.
"That is precisely the reason why associating the terminology of "arya" as used in the vedic-period with the terminology as used in the post-vedic period is stupid. You should be laughing at yourself. "
But why should there have been a different "terminology" without mention of the earlier given that the same samhitas were read? You didn't answer why this change should have come despite the samhitas being read by everyone throughout history in the exact same way it is.
Repetition. Throughout history people have read samhitas the same way (as did even yaska, medatithi, sayana who mentioned aryas and non-aryas as warring factions). It is apparent that you want to keep repeating the same things because you want to be stuck on your notion that "arya" and "dasyu" refer to character .
"Well the people who wrote the veda samhitas were different from the ones who wrote the itihasas. Ramayana was written by Valmiki. Was Valmiki well-read in the Samhitas? Mahabharat was written over a long period of time with a bunch of verses being considered intepolations."
That doesn't explain it. After all so many brahmins did read both the Samhitas and the epics, not over a few years, but over centuries. None of them came with the mention that these two accounts aren't coherent in the use of the term. The use of arya is unmistakable in the Mahabharata.
Sorry brahmins who read the samhitas (including those studying sanskrit in universities today) do mention the aryas and dasyus as warring factions. And everyone agrees that the vedic period was ancient. Most people also agree that the itihasa period happend after the vedic period. It is not necessary that meanings of words must remain unchanged over time.
Anyways, may i know on what basis did you insist that those who wrote "
..the epics were very much aware of the veda samhitas" ?
"It is not just "modern authors" who have "claimed" things. Have you even read something on the geographical descrptions given in the vedic literature? How much have you read about ancient history to offer your views? "
Yes, the claims of modern authors are ridiculous by one verse they generalize the idea. Their translations are themseleves non-coherent and contradictory. The link you gave me to "The Aryas, facts without fancy and fiction" itself admits to "The difference between the dasyu/dasa and the aryan is not clearly indicated" (page 33). It tells verse RV 8.24.27 points the location of the dasas, but yet Griffith's translation (in sacred-texts.com) says something entirely different. Point however is ancient authors didnot speak of dasyus having inhabited a place or origins from there, nor do they classify clans as dasyu and others as arya. You would do good to actually show me where Sayana even says dasyus came from so and so place, or if he said arya clans were fighting dasyu clans. This claim is by modern authors only, who wanted to prove the racial ideas the British put forth - because it is exactly what they learnt in their course of Master's in Art (History). Even Vivekananda, P. Sankaranaryan have read the samhitas none of them make such claims because they didn't study it in the manner British taught it.
In the book "The Aryas, facts without fancy and fiction" yes the authors do say that the "
The difference between the dasyu/dasa and the aryan is not clearly indicated" (page 33). But please read the paragraphs before and after this sentence. It is quite apparent that the authors find no basis for a racial difference or difference in looks, despsite the fights between the 2 factions. The authors of the book do refer to the aryas as "arya clans". There is no necessity for Sayana to have said that "dasyus came from so and so place". Sayana's commentary on the rig is just a simplified explanation / translation. Locations were already mentioned in the vedas (like names of rivers). If you are really interested in maps, locations, routes, then you will love the book "Discovering the Vedas" by Frits Stal.
"You are just a hasty man keen to push your pre-conceived notions without any basis."
Sure, sure. I was hasty when I told you fire-rite clans (so-called "arya") were called dasyu in RV 7.6.3. I was hasty when I was asking you how Shaivite brahmins don't see the paradoxes you imagine exist. Right? lol. By calling me names and abuses, you don't strengthen your arguments to my questions.
Yes ofcourse you are hasty. Without even differentiating between my words and those of Iyengar, you made
post # 98. I had copy-pasted Iyengar's words and marked them in blue. But you went on to claim (that is misquote):
"Yes, and all of these have alternative meanings, you yourself put it correctly in outside and inside bracket in one term "without prayers" (or also not having Brahmana preists)".
If you do not wish to be seen as a hasty guy, then you need to post counter-views validated with references. Example: instead of claiming that "
all of these have alternative meanings", you need to offer those alternative meanings, or provide book links which provide alternative meanings.
Also, you can yourself do some self-study instead of going on asking questions here. Definitely you can either buy / read books on the Rudra-Shiva merger, on Vishwamitra, etc. You cannot just make post after post repeating the same old things.
As for misleading, if you keep saying that Sayana did not speak of clans or that there is a "traditional method" to derive "metaphoric meanings", yes it would be called misleading.
Suppose i did not even read Sayana's comments on dasyus, yet i go on repeating that "Sayana did not say this or that" - would it be called correct? Is that the right way to involve in a conversation?
Regards.
